Energy Analysis and Measurement of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Livestock Systems. A Comparison of Different Livestock Systems in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon

This paper introduces an assessment method based on the Planet method (2002). It aims to measure the energy inputs and outputs, their conversion efficiencies and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in agricultural systems at the farm level. The method was applied to compare smallholder mixed dairy-be...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Review of agricultural, food and environmental studies food and environmental studies, 2017, Vol.6 (1), p.30-37
Hauptverfasser: Pachoud, Carine, Chapuis, René Poccard, Bonaudo, Thierry, Tourrand, Jean-François, Mauricio, Rogério Martins
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 37
container_issue 1
container_start_page 30
container_title Review of agricultural, food and environmental studies
container_volume 6
creator Pachoud, Carine
Chapuis, René Poccard
Bonaudo, Thierry
Tourrand, Jean-François
Mauricio, Rogério Martins
description This paper introduces an assessment method based on the Planet method (2002). It aims to measure the energy inputs and outputs, their conversion efficiencies and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in agricultural systems at the farm level. The method was applied to compare smallholder mixed dairy-beef livestock systems (SM) with two extensive and highly technical beef breeding-fattening (BB) and fattening (BF) systems, in the Eastern part of the Brazilian Amazon. It appears that SM farms are the lowest-level input system (13 koe ha-1 of pasture); therefore, they do not require substantial amounts of fossil-energy to produce the outputs. The BF system is the highest level inputs user (60 koe ha-1 of pasture). No significant difference was found for the BB system when compared to the BF and SM systems (38 koe ha-1 of pasture). In regards to the energy outputs, the SM system had the lowest production per hectare of pasture (30 koe ha-1 of pasture), while the BB system had an intermediate amount of energy production (68 koe ha-1 of pasture), and the BF system had the highest production (129 koe ha-1 of pasture). The only output from the BB and BF systems is beef, while the SM system produces beef obtained from the sale of male calves to the BF farms and also dairy products on the local market (essentially cheese). No significant difference was found between the three systems in terms of energy efficiency (average of 2.3). Finally, the GHG emissions were the highest for the BF system (7814 kg CO2 ha-1 of pasture), intermediate for the BB system (2619 kg of CO2 ha-1 of pasture), and the lowest for the SM system (1702 kg of CO2 ha-1 of pasture). The major source of emissions differed for the three systems - burning practices for the SM farms; enteric fermentation for the BB farms; and the purchase of calves and burning practices for two-thirds and one-third of the BF farms, respectively. The energy inputs and outputs and GHG emissions expressed per ton of live weight produced were compared between the BB and the BF systems. No significant differences were found for the four indicators. According to other analyses, the three systems studied are low-level fossil energy users.
doi_str_mv 10.15640/jaes.v6n1a3
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>hal</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03691880v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>oai_HAL_hal_03691880v1</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-h723-634e112b443f0e73987f7733d00dc861d82f66f926829a4d1b48038d2dde2d743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplTbtOwzAU9QASVenGB3hlSPGrjjOGElqkIAa6R7e1Q1wSu7LTSunf8Kc0wMZ0njoHoTtK5nQhBXnYg4nzk3QU-BWaMMEWiVQpuUGzGPeEEMYol0RN0FfhTPgYcO6gHaKNGJzGrwbiMZjOuB77GveNwatgjGv8MV4oRFx0NkbrXRzz0p5M7P3uE78PsTddnOMcL313gGCjd2Plyda1CePevzK27uehgIsMDj8GONvWgsN5B2fvbtF1DW00sz-cos1zsVmuk_Jt9bLMy6RJGU8kF4ZSthWC18SkPFNpnaaca0L0TkmqFaulrDMmFctAaLoVinClmdaG6VTwKbr_nW2grQ7BdhCGyoOt1nlZjR7hMqNKkRPl351Bbpk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Energy Analysis and Measurement of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Livestock Systems. A Comparison of Different Livestock Systems in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><source>ProQuest Central</source><creator>Pachoud, Carine ; Chapuis, René Poccard ; Bonaudo, Thierry ; Tourrand, Jean-François ; Mauricio, Rogério Martins</creator><creatorcontrib>Pachoud, Carine ; Chapuis, René Poccard ; Bonaudo, Thierry ; Tourrand, Jean-François ; Mauricio, Rogério Martins</creatorcontrib><description>This paper introduces an assessment method based on the Planet method (2002). It aims to measure the energy inputs and outputs, their conversion efficiencies and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in agricultural systems at the farm level. The method was applied to compare smallholder mixed dairy-beef livestock systems (SM) with two extensive and highly technical beef breeding-fattening (BB) and fattening (BF) systems, in the Eastern part of the Brazilian Amazon. It appears that SM farms are the lowest-level input system (13 koe ha-1 of pasture); therefore, they do not require substantial amounts of fossil-energy to produce the outputs. The BF system is the highest level inputs user (60 koe ha-1 of pasture). No significant difference was found for the BB system when compared to the BF and SM systems (38 koe ha-1 of pasture). In regards to the energy outputs, the SM system had the lowest production per hectare of pasture (30 koe ha-1 of pasture), while the BB system had an intermediate amount of energy production (68 koe ha-1 of pasture), and the BF system had the highest production (129 koe ha-1 of pasture). The only output from the BB and BF systems is beef, while the SM system produces beef obtained from the sale of male calves to the BF farms and also dairy products on the local market (essentially cheese). No significant difference was found between the three systems in terms of energy efficiency (average of 2.3). Finally, the GHG emissions were the highest for the BF system (7814 kg CO2 ha-1 of pasture), intermediate for the BB system (2619 kg of CO2 ha-1 of pasture), and the lowest for the SM system (1702 kg of CO2 ha-1 of pasture). The major source of emissions differed for the three systems - burning practices for the SM farms; enteric fermentation for the BB farms; and the purchase of calves and burning practices for two-thirds and one-third of the BF farms, respectively. The energy inputs and outputs and GHG emissions expressed per ton of live weight produced were compared between the BB and the BF systems. No significant differences were found for the four indicators. According to other analyses, the three systems studied are low-level fossil energy users.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2425-6870</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.15640/jaes.v6n1a3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Springer</publisher><subject>Agricultural sciences ; Environment and Society ; Environmental Sciences ; Global Changes ; Life Sciences</subject><ispartof>Review of agricultural, food and environmental studies, 2017, Vol.6 (1), p.30-37</ispartof><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0003-1557-1554 ; 0000-0003-4590-2203 ; 0000-0003-2200-0637</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,4024,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://agroparistech.hal.science/hal-03691880$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pachoud, Carine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chapuis, René Poccard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bonaudo, Thierry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tourrand, Jean-François</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mauricio, Rogério Martins</creatorcontrib><title>Energy Analysis and Measurement of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Livestock Systems. A Comparison of Different Livestock Systems in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon</title><title>Review of agricultural, food and environmental studies</title><description>This paper introduces an assessment method based on the Planet method (2002). It aims to measure the energy inputs and outputs, their conversion efficiencies and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in agricultural systems at the farm level. The method was applied to compare smallholder mixed dairy-beef livestock systems (SM) with two extensive and highly technical beef breeding-fattening (BB) and fattening (BF) systems, in the Eastern part of the Brazilian Amazon. It appears that SM farms are the lowest-level input system (13 koe ha-1 of pasture); therefore, they do not require substantial amounts of fossil-energy to produce the outputs. The BF system is the highest level inputs user (60 koe ha-1 of pasture). No significant difference was found for the BB system when compared to the BF and SM systems (38 koe ha-1 of pasture). In regards to the energy outputs, the SM system had the lowest production per hectare of pasture (30 koe ha-1 of pasture), while the BB system had an intermediate amount of energy production (68 koe ha-1 of pasture), and the BF system had the highest production (129 koe ha-1 of pasture). The only output from the BB and BF systems is beef, while the SM system produces beef obtained from the sale of male calves to the BF farms and also dairy products on the local market (essentially cheese). No significant difference was found between the three systems in terms of energy efficiency (average of 2.3). Finally, the GHG emissions were the highest for the BF system (7814 kg CO2 ha-1 of pasture), intermediate for the BB system (2619 kg of CO2 ha-1 of pasture), and the lowest for the SM system (1702 kg of CO2 ha-1 of pasture). The major source of emissions differed for the three systems - burning practices for the SM farms; enteric fermentation for the BB farms; and the purchase of calves and burning practices for two-thirds and one-third of the BF farms, respectively. The energy inputs and outputs and GHG emissions expressed per ton of live weight produced were compared between the BB and the BF systems. No significant differences were found for the four indicators. According to other analyses, the three systems studied are low-level fossil energy users.</description><subject>Agricultural sciences</subject><subject>Environment and Society</subject><subject>Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Global Changes</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><issn>2425-6870</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNplTbtOwzAU9QASVenGB3hlSPGrjjOGElqkIAa6R7e1Q1wSu7LTSunf8Kc0wMZ0njoHoTtK5nQhBXnYg4nzk3QU-BWaMMEWiVQpuUGzGPeEEMYol0RN0FfhTPgYcO6gHaKNGJzGrwbiMZjOuB77GveNwatgjGv8MV4oRFx0NkbrXRzz0p5M7P3uE78PsTddnOMcL313gGCjd2Plyda1CePevzK27uehgIsMDj8GONvWgsN5B2fvbtF1DW00sz-cos1zsVmuk_Jt9bLMy6RJGU8kF4ZSthWC18SkPFNpnaaca0L0TkmqFaulrDMmFctAaLoVinClmdaG6VTwKbr_nW2grQ7BdhCGyoOt1nlZjR7hMqNKkRPl351Bbpk</recordid><startdate>2017</startdate><enddate>2017</enddate><creator>Pachoud, Carine</creator><creator>Chapuis, René Poccard</creator><creator>Bonaudo, Thierry</creator><creator>Tourrand, Jean-François</creator><creator>Mauricio, Rogério Martins</creator><general>Springer</general><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1557-1554</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4590-2203</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2200-0637</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2017</creationdate><title>Energy Analysis and Measurement of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Livestock Systems. A Comparison of Different Livestock Systems in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon</title><author>Pachoud, Carine ; Chapuis, René Poccard ; Bonaudo, Thierry ; Tourrand, Jean-François ; Mauricio, Rogério Martins</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-h723-634e112b443f0e73987f7733d00dc861d82f66f926829a4d1b48038d2dde2d743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Agricultural sciences</topic><topic>Environment and Society</topic><topic>Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Global Changes</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pachoud, Carine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chapuis, René Poccard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bonaudo, Thierry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tourrand, Jean-François</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mauricio, Rogério Martins</creatorcontrib><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>Review of agricultural, food and environmental studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pachoud, Carine</au><au>Chapuis, René Poccard</au><au>Bonaudo, Thierry</au><au>Tourrand, Jean-François</au><au>Mauricio, Rogério Martins</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Energy Analysis and Measurement of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Livestock Systems. A Comparison of Different Livestock Systems in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon</atitle><jtitle>Review of agricultural, food and environmental studies</jtitle><date>2017</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>30</spage><epage>37</epage><pages>30-37</pages><issn>2425-6870</issn><abstract>This paper introduces an assessment method based on the Planet method (2002). It aims to measure the energy inputs and outputs, their conversion efficiencies and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in agricultural systems at the farm level. The method was applied to compare smallholder mixed dairy-beef livestock systems (SM) with two extensive and highly technical beef breeding-fattening (BB) and fattening (BF) systems, in the Eastern part of the Brazilian Amazon. It appears that SM farms are the lowest-level input system (13 koe ha-1 of pasture); therefore, they do not require substantial amounts of fossil-energy to produce the outputs. The BF system is the highest level inputs user (60 koe ha-1 of pasture). No significant difference was found for the BB system when compared to the BF and SM systems (38 koe ha-1 of pasture). In regards to the energy outputs, the SM system had the lowest production per hectare of pasture (30 koe ha-1 of pasture), while the BB system had an intermediate amount of energy production (68 koe ha-1 of pasture), and the BF system had the highest production (129 koe ha-1 of pasture). The only output from the BB and BF systems is beef, while the SM system produces beef obtained from the sale of male calves to the BF farms and also dairy products on the local market (essentially cheese). No significant difference was found between the three systems in terms of energy efficiency (average of 2.3). Finally, the GHG emissions were the highest for the BF system (7814 kg CO2 ha-1 of pasture), intermediate for the BB system (2619 kg of CO2 ha-1 of pasture), and the lowest for the SM system (1702 kg of CO2 ha-1 of pasture). The major source of emissions differed for the three systems - burning practices for the SM farms; enteric fermentation for the BB farms; and the purchase of calves and burning practices for two-thirds and one-third of the BF farms, respectively. The energy inputs and outputs and GHG emissions expressed per ton of live weight produced were compared between the BB and the BF systems. No significant differences were found for the four indicators. According to other analyses, the three systems studied are low-level fossil energy users.</abstract><pub>Springer</pub><doi>10.15640/jaes.v6n1a3</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1557-1554</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4590-2203</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2200-0637</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2425-6870
ispartof Review of agricultural, food and environmental studies, 2017, Vol.6 (1), p.30-37
issn 2425-6870
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03691880v1
source SpringerNature Journals; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland; ProQuest Central
subjects Agricultural sciences
Environment and Society
Environmental Sciences
Global Changes
Life Sciences
title Energy Analysis and Measurement of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Livestock Systems. A Comparison of Different Livestock Systems in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T15%3A12%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-hal&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Energy%20Analysis%20and%20Measurement%20of%20the%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions%20of%20Livestock%20Systems.%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Different%20Livestock%20Systems%20in%20the%20Eastern%20Brazilian%20Amazon&rft.jtitle=Review%20of%20agricultural,%20food%20and%20environmental%20studies&rft.au=Pachoud,%20Carine&rft.date=2017&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=30&rft.epage=37&rft.pages=30-37&rft.issn=2425-6870&rft_id=info:doi/10.15640/jaes.v6n1a3&rft_dat=%3Chal%3Eoai_HAL_hal_03691880v1%3C/hal%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true